Judge Hamayun Dilawar notes first three witnesses on the list are tax consultants.

ISLAMABAD   -  A local court of Islamabad Wednesday rejected the list of witnesses presented by the counsels of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman in Toshakhana criminal case and sought final arguments in the trial.

Additional District and Sessions Judge Hamayun Dilawar heard the Toshakhana criminal case against deposed premier Imran Khan. During the course of the proceeding, Imran Niazi’s lawyer Barrister Gohar Ali Khan submitted a list comprising four private witnesses to the court.

The witnesses include tax consultants of YIA Muhammad Usman Ali, Senior Manager Qadeer Ahmed, Senior Manager ITP Naveed Fareed and PTI’s Rauf Hassan. The lawyer said that one witness was related to tax returns while the other was from a private bank.

The judge observed that the defence had to produce the witnesses for testimony this day instead of just filing a list. Barrister Gohar prayed the court to grant time till Thursday (today) for the production of the witnesses as they were in Karachi to this the judge asked the defence to present their witness.

The court noted that the first three witnesses on the list were tax consultants, adding that this case was not related to income tax returns or wealth statements.

ECP’s Counsel Amjad Pervaiz said that it was the responsibility of the defence to produce the private witnesses. The trial was being run under Election Act 2017, he said, adding that the question in the case was related to a false declaration. He said that no production of the witnesses by the defence was a delaying tact, adding that the said witnesses were also irrelevant in this case.

The court said that it was not viewing entries related to income tax or wealth statements. It said that the defence couldn’t prove that the witnesses added to the list were relevant to the case so the court couldn’t grant permission to present them for the statement.

The court rejected the list of four witnesses and said that the court would reserve its judgment if the respondents didn’t give final arguments in the case Thursday (today). Further hearing of the case was then adjourned.